I'm baffled by a quotation from argument of a AGW opponent where he laments "concatenations of calculations"?

Question

Here is the claim:

"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)

An entire page of discussion descends from this heading but I can't say that I understand why he considers this a convincing argument. For example, just because a long series of calculations (i.e. a "concatenation") can be done on a pocket calculator, why does that make them thereby "theoretical" and incapable of being part of an evidentiary argument?

(American English is a second language for me -- as if British English but I find it more familiar and easier for me -- so I sometimes miss idiomatic expressions when I'm in the States. And some satirical statements go right over my head. So am I missing something here in terms of the author's meaning?)

Answer 1

You're not missing anything. As with all global warming denier arguments, there is no substance to this one. Evans is apparently ignorant of the physics of radiative forcings, the key fingerprints of an enhanced greenhouse effect such as upper atmosphere cooling, etc. Which isn't terribly surprising, since he's just a computer programmer.



But you're correct that his argument that computer models can't be used as evidence in support of the theory makes no sense whatsoever.

Answer 2

I do not accept that global warming is man caused. I also do not accept that CO2 is a main greenhouse gas. Moreover, roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor, common knowledge among climatologists. A fact that is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether by special interests, certain governmental groups, and main stream liberal news media reporters.



95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and water vapor does hold in cocentrations of CO2.



I think you may have misread most of David Evans' articles, his main comment to all of them comes down to "Science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations."



David Evans, a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, is head of Science Speak.



NOTE TO GARY F:



Thanks for the rude heads up, if the word error bothered you so much you could have e-mailed me, I don't hide, I let anyone e-mail me, even liberals.



Yes, I guess I missed an editing class or two maybe even a spelling class.



I am so grateful for the alert and superior liberal minds that can catch others mistakes and broadcast them. That is what you do best.



Don't you make any errors I am going to follow you to see that you don't. I AM WATCHING.



Thank you Gary F.

Answer 3

con·cat·e·nate (k n-k t n-t, k n-) tr.v. con·cat·e·nat·ed, con·cat·e·nat·ing, con·cat·e·nates. 1. To connect or link in a series or chain.



No. It's not used in the States as a satirical statement or any other kind of statement. Heck! I bet most of us would have to do like me and look it up just to know what it meant!

Answer 4

Every model is theoretical. If we had a model that predicted as asteroid collision, should we not spend the money to try to avert it because there could be an unknown variable that we hadn't anticipated?



It's a terrible argument, he's essentially blaming climate change on an invisible unknown variable.

Answer 5

AGW is based on empirical evidence, not computer models. The simulations get a lot of attention because people like cool-looking graphics and they've been seduced by techno-gadgets.



====



Eklektikos --



>"I do not except"



You skipped a lot of classes in school, huh?

Answer 6

He obviously has no idea what he's talking about. All one has to do is look at the data to realize :"Oh hey there is something to this" and he is making up words.